托福網路測驗中的整合寫作是一種將閱讀文章、聽演講，和寫短文整合在一起的寫作測驗。其中聽演講的部分對英語為外國語的學生而言是一大考驗，因為他們的聽力能力大部分都尚未成熟到可以快速地吸收與處理資訊，然後去擷取演講中的內容。為了加速聽力理解，學生需要更多聽力策略的幫忙。在所有聽力策略當中，後設認知聽力策略一直被主張是最重要的策略，因為它們能為語言學習者的聽力理解帶來正面的效果。因此，本研究為對英語為外國語的學生進行後設認知聽力策略教學，此教學是針對托福網路測驗中的整合寫作而設計，而研究目的就是去探討此教學對於學生的聽力理解和測驗表現上的成效。

本研究由六位台灣大學生為受試者所組成。根據其前測成績，這些受試者被分成兩組，其中三位在控制組，另外三位在實驗組。他們每週個別接受兩次的教學，共為期三週。實驗組接受後設認知聽力策略教學和寫作技巧教學，而控制組只接受寫作技巧教學。每次的教學中，兩組人都有做模擬托福網路測驗整合寫作的練習測驗、回答為該測驗設計的聽力與閱讀理解問題，並且接受寫作批改。此外，實驗組在每次的教學裡有額外被訪談關於特定後設認知聽力策略的使用。在教學前後，所有受試者都有做模擬托福網路測驗整合寫作的前測、後測和延後測考試。受試者也必須在所有的測驗後回想與報告他們整個測驗的過程，而且特別在前測、後測和延後測考試被訪談關於後設認知聽力策略的使用。受試者的寫作短文是根據托福網路測驗整合寫作的評量指標來批改給分。蒐集到的資料是經由測驗成績的檢視、回答聽力理解問題的狀況檢視、後設認知聽力策略使用的主題式分析，以及測驗過程的情形來詮釋結果。

研究結果顯示控制組和實驗組在教學後的測驗成績都有進步，而且兩組的進步幅度相似。仔細檢視受試者的後設認知聽力策略使用情形後，可以發現所有受試者從前測開始就都有一直在使用後設認知聽力策略，而他們如何使用後設認知聽力策略可以指出他們的程度差別，以及反映出他們的聽力理解狀況。後設認知聽力策略教學只是讓實驗組認識到不同的後設認知聽力策略名稱，所以他們比較能夠提出聽力計畫。事實上，當實驗組和控制組在回想他們的測驗過程和回報他們如何使用後設認知聽力策略的時候，兩組都有覺察到他們自己的聽力理解過程。本教學的成功實際上是來自受試者的後設認知覺察以及寫作技巧的學習。後設認知聽力策略並沒有直接幫助受試者的聽力理解，但是他們對自己的聽力過程的了解能夠幫助他們表現更好。受試者的後設認知聽力策略使用與考試成績的關係其實是正面但不直接相關的。除了後設認知聽力策略的使用之外，受試者的閱讀理解策略、寫作策略，甚至是測驗的主題都影響著他們的測驗表現。

The TOEFL iBT integrated writing task is a type of writing assessment that involves test takers reading a passage, listening to a lecture, and writing an essay. Listening to the lecture could be the biggest problem for EFL learners because many of their listening ability are not developed enough to process the information fast and extract content from the lecture. To facilitate their listening comprehension, they need more support from listening strategies. Among the listening strategies, metacognitive listening strategies have been argued to be the most important strategies that could bring positive effects on language learners’ listening comprehension. Thus, the study was to give EFL learners the metacognitive listening strategy instruction targeting such TOEFL iBT integrated writing task with the aim to examine its effects on learners’ listening comprehension and test performance.

The main study had 6 undergraduates studying in Taiwan as participants. Based on the pretest score, these participants were divided into two groups with three in the control group and the other three in the experimental group. They received individual instruction twice per week for consecutive three weeks. The experimental group received both the metacognitive listening strategy instruction and the writing skill instruction, while the control group received the writing skill instruction only. After each instruction, the two groups were asked to take the practice TOEFL iBT integrated writing task, answer reading and listening comprehension questions designed specifically for the task, and have their essay graded. Moreover, the experimental group in each instruction was extra interviewed about their use of the target metacognitive listening strategy. Before and after the instructions, there were a pretest, a posttest, and a delayed posttest where all participants took different practice of the TOEFL iBT integrated writing task. The participants were requested to recall and report their entire test taking process and interviewed about their metacognitive listening strategy use on tackling the task. The participants’ essays were graded based on the TOEFL iBT integrated writing rubrics. The collected data were interpreted through the examination of their test scores, the examination of their situations of answering listening comprehension questions, the thematic analysis of their metacognitive listening strategy use and the inspection of their test taking process.

The results revealed that both the control group and the experimental group improved after the instruction and the two groups’ improvement were quite similar.
After the close examination of the participants’ metacognitive listening strategy use, it was found that all of them had been using the metacognitive listening strategies since the pretest. How they used the strategies indicated their proficiency levels and reflected their listening comprehension situations. The metacognitive listening strategy instruction only made the experimental group learn different names of metacognitive listening strategies so they were more able to describe their listening plan. In fact, both the control group and the experimental group became more conscious about their listening process when they were asked to recall their test taking process and report how they used the metacognitive listening strategies. The success of the instruction actually came from both the participants’ raise of metacognitive awareness and their learning of writing skills. The metacognitive listening strategies did not directly facilitate the participants’ listening comprehension, but their consciousness of their listening process helped them perform better. The relationship between the participants’ metacognitive listening strategy use and their test scores on the practice TOEFL iBT integrated writing task was indeed positively but indirectly related. In addition to their metacognitive listening strategy use, their reading comprehension strategies, essay writing strategies, and even the topic of the test all influenced their test performance.

ABSTRACT (Chinese)...............................................i
ABSTRACT (English).............................................iii
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................vi
LIST OF TABLES..................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION.........................................1
1.1 Research Background..........................................1
1.2 Purpose of the Study.........................................4
1.3 Significance of the Study....................................4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW....................................6
2.1 Overview of the Chapter......................................6
2.2 Listening....................................................6
2.2.1 Process of Listening.......................................6
2.2.2 Difficulties of Listening..................................9
2.2.3 Instruction of Listening..................................10
2.3 Listening Strategies........................................11
2.3.1 Categories of Listening Strategies........................11
2.3.2 Studies of Listening Strategies...........................13
2.4 Metacognitive Listening Strategies..........................14
2.4.1 Theory of Metacognition...................................15
2.4.2 Categories of Metacognitive Listening Strategies..........16
2.4.3 Instruction of Metacognitive Listening Strategies.........21
2.4.4 Studies of Metacognitive Listening Strategies.............24
2.5 Integrated Writing..........................................26
2.5.1 Introduction of Integrated Writing........................27
2.5.2 Integrated Writing & Strategies...........................29
2.5.3 Studies of TOEFL iBT Integrated Writing & Strategies......31
2.5.4 Extension from Previous Research..........................33
2.6 Summary of the Chapter......................................34
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY.......................................35
3.1 The Study...................................................35
3.2 The Pilot Study.............................................35
3.3 The Main Study..............................................37
3.3.1 Participants..............................................37
3.3.2 Data Collection Procedures................................38
3.3.3 Instruments...............................................40
3.3.4 Data Analysis.............................................49
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS............................................51
4.1 Background Information......................................51
4.2 Results of Test Scores......................................53
4.3 Results of Listening Comprehension Questions................59
4.4 Results of Strategy Use.....................................60
4.4.1 Metacognitive Listening Strategy Use......................61
4.4.2 Other Strategy Use........................................76
4.5 Participants’ Opinions on the Instruction...................79 4.6 Summary of the Results......................................80
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION.........................................82
5.1 Summary of Main Findings....................................82
5.2 Metacognitive Listening Strategies & Listening Comprehension ................................................................84
5.3 Metacognitive Listening Strategies & Test Performance.......87
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION..........................................92
6.1 Conclusion of the Study.....................................92
6.2 Implications of the Study...................................93 6.3 Limitations and Future Research.............................95
REFERENCES......................................................97
Appendix A Interview Guidelines for Background Check...........105
Appendix B Interview Guidelines for Metacognitive Listening Strategy Use...................................................107
Appendix C Interview Guidelines for Target Strategy Cross Check ...............................................................109
Appendix D Metacognitive Listening Strategy Teaching Materials .............................................................. 111
Appendix E Writing Skill Teaching Materials....................137 Appendix F Reading & Listening Comprehension Questions.........155
Appendix G The Practice TOEFL iBT Integrated Writing Task & Answer Keys...........................................................164
Appendix H TOEFL iBT Integrated Writing Rubrics................193
Appendix I The Coding Scheme...................................194

Allan, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading test takers. Language Testing, 9(2), 101-119.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning, ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Ascencion, Y. (2004). Validation of Reading-to-Write Assessment Tasks Performed By Second Language Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453-476.
Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical Analysis for Language Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 160-178.
Bracewell, R. J., Frederiksen, C. H., & Frederiksen, J. D. (1982). Cognitive processes in composing and comprehending discourse. Educational Psychologist, 17(3), 146-164.
Braine, G. (2001). When an exit test fails. System, 29(2), 221-234.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burstein, J., Flor, M., Tetreault, J., Madnani, N., & Holtzman, S. (2012). Examining linguistic characteristics of paraphrase in test-taker summaries. ETS Research Report Series (RR-12-18).
Chamot, A. U., Kupper, L., & Impink-Hernandez, M. (1988). A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: Findings of the Longitudinal Study. McLean, VA: Interstate Research Associates.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Charge, N., & Taylor, L. B. (1997). Recent developments in IELTS. ELT Journal, 51(4), 374-380.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies and processes in test taking and SLA. In M. H. Long, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Interfaces Between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research (pp. 90-111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 307-331.
Cohen, A. D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2009). Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner strategies website for Spanish. In T. Kao, & Y. Lin (Eds.), A New Look at Language Teaching and Testing: English as Subject and Vehicle (pp. 63-83). Taipei, Taiwan: Language Training and Testing Center.
Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2007). “I want to go back to the text”: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language Testing, 24(2), 209-250.
Crocker, L. (2006). Preparing examinees for test taking: Guidelines for test developers. In S. M. Downing, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of Test Development (pp. 115-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cross, J. (2011). Metacognitive instruction for helping less-skilled listeners. ELT Journal, 65(4), 408-416.
Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. E. (2004). A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. Language Testing, 21(2), 107-145.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43.
Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453-464.
Eastman, J. K. (1991). Learning to listen and comprehend: The beginning stages. System, 19(3), 179-187.
Educational Testing Service. (2015). Official TOEFL iBT Tests (2nd ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Educational Testing Service. (2016). Official TOEFL iBT Tests (1st ed., Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Educational Testing Service. (2018). The Official Guide to the TOEFL Test (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students' reading and writing performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 599-620.
Feak, C., & Dobson, B. (1996). Building on the impromptu: A source-based academic writing assessment. College ESL, 6(1), 73-84.
Field, J. (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, J. (2003). From products to process: An ecological approach to bias detection. International Journal of Testing, 3(1), 21-47.
Fox, J. (2004). Test decisions over time: Tracking validity. Language Testing, 21(4), 437-465.
Gebril, A. (2006). Independent and Integrated Academic Writing Tasks: A Study in Generalizability and Test Method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104.
Goh, C. (1999). How much do learners know about the factors that influence their listening comprehension? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 17-42.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75.
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206.
Goh, C. (2005). Second language listening expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 64-84). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2), 188-213.
Goh, C. (2010). Listening as process: Learning activities for self-appraisal and self-regulation. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice (pp. 179-206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goh, C., & Hu, G. (2014). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness, 23(3), 255-274.
Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222-232.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. New York, NY: Longman.
Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2), 165-182.
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct‐irrelevant variance in high‐stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17-27.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001). Fourth generation writing assessment. In T. Silva, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 117-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haviland, C. P., & Clark, J. M. (1992). What can our students tell us about essay examination designs and practices? Journal of Basic Writing, 11(2), 47-60.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109-131.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788-806.
Hyland, T. A. (2005). A Study of the Practices of EL1 and EL2 Students in Reporting Information From Sources in a Timed Writing Proficiency Assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
Jones, R. (1985). Second language performance testing: An overview. In P. Hauptman, R. LeBlanc & M. Wesche (Eds.), Second Language Performance Testing (pp. 15-24). Ottawa, CA: University of Ottawa Press.
Leaver, B. L. (2003). Individualized Study Plans for Very Advanced Students of Foreign Languages. Salinas, CA: MSI Press.
Lee, Y. W., & Kantor, R. (2005). Dependability of New ESL Writing Test Scores: Tasks and Alternative Rating Schemes (TOEFL Monograph Series No. 31). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.
Lewkowicz, J. A. (1994). Writing from sources: Does source material help or hinder students’ performance? In N. Bird, et al. (Eds.), Language and Learning: Papers Presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference, ERIC Document (ED 386 050).
Lewkowicz, J. A. (1997). The integrated testing of a second language. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Vol. 7, pp. 121-130). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Lin, C. H. (2012). The Effects of Metacognitive Listening Instruction on EFL Listening Comprehension of Sixth Graders. Unpublished MA thesis. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei.
Lougheed, L. (2011). Writing for the TOEFL iBT (4th ed.). New York, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.
Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and on success. In E. Macaro & A. Cohen (Eds.), Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years of Research and Practice (pp. 165-185). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to Listen: A Strategy-Based Approach for the Second-Language Learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1995). Applying learning strategies in the second/foreign language listening comprehension lesson. In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A Guide for the Teaching of Second Language Listening (pp. 132-150). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-101.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (2002). The lecture buddy project: An experiment in EAP listening comprehension. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 64-73.
Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed., pp. 69-85). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102-116.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 418-437.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System, 21(2), 205-211.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. London, UK: Pearson.
Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H. J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, 42(1), 1-48.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111-129.
Plakans, L. (2009a). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252-266.
Plakans, L. (2009b). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561-587.
Plakans, L. (2015). Integrated second language writing assessment: Why? What? How? Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(4), 159-167.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217-230.
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 301-342.
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers' cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47(2), 289-325.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability test takers: A structural equation modelling approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379.
Rahimirad, M. (2014). The impact of metacognitive strategy instruction on the listening performance of university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1485-1491.
Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167.
Read, J. (1990). Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test. English for Specific Purposes, 9(2), 109-121.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 199-221.
Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(1), 25-37.
Rubin, J. (2013). Teaching language-learning strategies. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years of Research and Practice (pp. 141-160). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T., & Lee, Y. W. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses: Assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 73-95.
Selamat, S., & Sidhu, G. K. (2013). Enhancing listening comprehension: The role of metacognitive strategy instruction (MetSI). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 421-430.
Spivey, N. (1984). Discourse Synthesis: Constructing Texts in Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spivey, N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 256-287.
Spivey, N. (1997). The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Spivey, N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7-26.
Stein, V. (1990). Exploring the cognition of reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-Write: Exploring a Cognitive and Social Process (pp. 119-143). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 331-342.
Tsai, C. H. L. (2004). Investigating the Relationships Between ESL Writers' Strategy Use and Their Second Language Writing Ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E. (1999). Systematic effects in the rating of second-language speaking ability: Test method and learner discourse. Language Testing, 16(1), 82-111.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168-176.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555-575.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70-89.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470-497.
Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-Write Tasks for the Assessment of Second Language Academic Writing Skills: Investigating Text Features and Rater Reaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 27-55.
Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and Developing Language Tests. Hemel, Hamstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.
Wesche, M. B. (1987). Second language performance testing: The Ontario test of ESL as an example. Language Testing, 4(1), 28-47.
White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: Research findings. System, 23(2), 207-221.
Yang, H. C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading‐listening‐writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80-103.
Zeng, Y. (2014). Investigating the effects of metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL learners' listening performance. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 3(2), 139-157.